Friday, February 26, 2010

Certain species of garter snake are remarkably immune to tetrodotoxin, a deadly compound that paralyzes and kills. That’s fortunate because the newt, one of the snake’s favorite meals, is loaded with the toxin. The resistance of these lucky snakes is due to tiny adjustments in a protein segment which otherwise is highly conserved across a wide range of animals. This high conservation, and the tiny variations in these snakes, constitute one of the many false predictions of evolutionary theory that lie hidden in journal papers. To understand this evolutionary quandary we first need a quick review of sodium channels.

What are sodium channels?

Nerve cells have a long tail which carries an electronic impulse. The tail can be several feet long and its signal might stimulate a muscle to action, control a gland, or report a sensation to the brain.

Like the many telephone wires wrapped into a cable, nerve cells are often bundled together to form a nerve. Early researchers considered that perhaps the electronic impulse traveled along the nerve cell tail like electricity in a wire. But they soon realized that the signal in nerve cells is too weak to travel very far. The nerve cell would need to boost the signal along the way for it to travel along the tail.

After years of research it was discovered that the signal is boosted by membrane proteins. First, there is a membrane protein that simultaneously pumps potassium ions into the cell and sodium ions out of the cell. This sets up a chemical gradient across the membrane. There is more potassium inside the cell than outside, and there is more sodium outside than inside. Also, there are more negatively charged ions inside the cell so there is a voltage drop (50-100 millivolt) across the membrane.

In addition to the sodium-potassium pump, there are also sodium channels and potassium channels. These membrane proteins allow sodium and potassium, respectively, to pass through the membrane. They are normally closed, but when the electronic impulse travels along the nerve cell tail, it causes the sodium channels to quickly open. Sodium ions outside the cell then come streaming into the cell down the electro-chemical gradient. As a result the voltage drop is reversed and the decaying electronic impulse, which caused the sodium channels to open, is boosted as it continues on its way along the nerve cell tail.

When the voltage goes from negative to positive inside the cell, the sodium channels slowly close and the potassium channels open. Hence the sodium channels are open only momentarily and, now with the potassium channels open, the potassium ions concentrated inside the cell come streaming out down their electro-chemical gradient. As a result the original voltage drop is reestablished.

This process repeats itself until the impulse finally reaches the end of the nerve cell tail. Although we’ve left out many details, it should be obvious that the process depends on the intricate workings of the three membrane proteins. The sodium-potassium pump helps set up the electro-chemical gradient, the electronic impulse is strong enough to activate the sodium channel, and then the sodium and potassium channels open and close with precise timing.

Toxic to evolutionary theory

Sodium channels are a great target for a biological toxin such as tetrodotoxin. Introduce a compound that clogs the channel and nerves and muscles lose function. That brings on paralysis, respiratory failure, and even death. Tetrodotoxin wreaks its havoc by binding to the opening of the sodium channel.

But for all its lethality, tetrodotoxin can be neutralized with merely a few changes to the sodium channel’s amino acid string. In fact, even swapping in a single new amino acid can do the job.

Such minor changes are found in various species, including three garter snakes, Thamnophis atratus, Thamnophis couchii and Thamnophis sirtalis, as detailed in research published last year.

These minor changes are found in segments of the sodium channel gene which otherwise is highly conserved across a wide range of species. From the garter snake to humans, these segments are identical, or nearly so.

For evolutionists, such strong similarity across so many species suggests strong selection at work. That is, very little variation in the amino acid sequence can be tolerated. As the authors explain:

Amino acid sequences within the [sodium channel segment] are nearly invariant across garter snakes and relatives and are almost identical to mammalian sequences, suggesting the locus is under strong purifying selection because of its critical functional role.

But if so little variation can be tolerated, then how did the sodium channel evolve in the first place? Vague evolutionary speculation, such as here and here, of course does not address this awkward question.

Also, how could those three lucky garter snake species survive the few mutations that must have occurred according to evolution. In other words, with evolution we must be believe that one or a few mutations occurred in the sodium channel segment which apparently cannot tolerate such change. These mutations would have been handy when the snake eventually consumed a newt, but in the meantime the mutations should not have been tolerable according to evolution.

Finally, the evidence suggests the multiple mutations work together. Alone, some of the mutations have little affect on helping the snake resist the tetrodotoxin, but together the mutations have a tremendous effect. The weak mutations alone would have been less likely to have been selected and therefore, according to evolution, essentially simultaneous mutations are more likely to have occurred. But this dramatically reduces the likelihood of such an event occurring at all. Religion drives science, and it matters.

116 comments:

Cornelius Hunter: For evolutionists, such strong similarity across so many species suggests strong selection at work. That is, very little variation in the amino acid sequence can be tolerated.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection. A great deal of variation may well provide sufficient function for viability, but may not be optimal for that function. In natural populations, all things equal, selection will tend maintain the optimized sequence. However, when all things are not equal, such as when there are limits in the food supply, a slightly less functional sodium channel may be a selective advantage if it also opens up a new food source. From the abstract:

Our results demonstrate that adaptive evolution has occurred independently multiple times in garter snakes via the de novo acquisition of beneficial mutations.

Natural Seletion: Those organisms with traits best suited for the environment will tend to leave the most offspring. With all else being equal, that would be the optimized sodium channel. (Population genetics can be a bit more complicated, but that's the gist.)

Consider the "arms race" analogy/argument of which "Darwinists" are so fond ... until such time as they need to ignore it. Such as here.

By the "arms race" line of "reasoning," the newts should be expected to have evolved a slightly different form of the toxin which would allow it to overcome the altered sofium channel proteins of the garter snakes.

Another fact-free and erroneous escape hatch. We see sequence identity from snakes to humans, but no, evolution doesn't need selection to explain such conservation. It just happened ...

Even evolutionists, in their honest moments, admit the sequence conservation is due to selection. They can say it, but a skeptic can't. When the skeptic says it, just tell him he has a "fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection."

"Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it. ..."

It's an eternal out when the "Darwinist" is confronted with a DarwinDenier who understands and states the frailty of 'modern evolutionary theory.'

Cornelius,yes, as Zach said, selection will tend to maintain the optimized sequence. in fact, if you read Brodie's other papers on this topic, you will see there is a cost to these mutations (slower movement). but the benefit provided by the ability to eat the new food source outweighed this cost. I'm sorry this doesn't make sense to you, but you are so deep in denial about evolution that you can't even acknowledge that antibiotic resistance occurs through evolution by natural selection.

I was always under the impression that one of the proofs of evolution is that organisms do not show optimal functioning. They typically only show good enough functioning, because this is the most that an unguided process can usually produce. A designer, on the other hand, would make everything perfect. So how could natural selection keep the sodium channels functioning optimally, accept when they need to change, if the best it can do is keep things good enough?

Ilíon: By the "arms race" line of "reasoning," the newts should be expected to have evolved a slightly different form of the toxin which would allow it to overcome the altered sofium channel proteins of the garter snakes.

And if evolution were true, Iraqi children would have evolved Kevlar skin.

In fact, the toxins are very potent as expected from a co-evolutionary process. Nor are snakes the only potential predator or challenge in the life of a newt. The toxin apparently works well-enough that the newt persists.

Zachriel: That's a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection. A great deal of variation may well provide sufficient function for viability, but may not be optimal for that function. In natural populations, all things equal, selection will tend maintain the optimized sequence. However, when all things are not equal, such as when there are limits in the food supply, a slightly less functional sodium channel may be a selective advantage if it also opens up a new food source.

Cornelius Hunter: Another fact-free and erroneous escape hatch. We see sequence identity from snakes to humans, but no, evolution doesn't need selection to explain such conservation.

Cornelius Hunter: Even evolutionists, in their honest moments, admit the sequence conservation is due to selection. They can say it, but a skeptic can't. When the skeptic says it, just tell him he has a "fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection."

We agree then that conservation is due to selection. Your misunderstanding is that you think the sequence can't possibly vary and still be conserved. It's conserved because small changes move the function off its local fitness peak, and selection moves it back. But if a small change allows the snake to expand its available food supply, especially during famine, then the fitness peak will have moved, and snakes who may have slightly less optimized sodium channels may be fitter overall if they can now avail themselves of a new food resource while their brethren starve.

Natural selection only removes genetic information from populations (because those unable to reproduce don't pass on their genes).

Cosnequently, with newt eating snakes one has to postulate (1) that the poisonous newts would be such an important food source that non-newt eating snakes would starve to death before reproduction, and (2) snakes that had long had the instinct, etc. not to eat poisonous newts would start eating them when other food sources disappeared (snakes without the "avoid poisonous newts" instinct would long ago have died out, and instinct must have at its base some genetic cause), and (3) the timing of the starvation and the gene mutation protection from tetrodoxin would have to occur simultaneously (and such events presumably are random occurances).

If there is an evolutionary pathway for such, then that evolutionary mutation must happen frequently enough that it will coincide with the events of "no food except for poisonous newts". If it happens that frequently, and is random, and is happening all the time, then we should be able to find populations of other species of garter snakes where this mutation keeps popping up (but is not preserved or spread in the populations because there is always enough other food).

Speculation is fine for writing books and research papers, but in the real world things don't work out because more than speculation is needed; one needs actual pragmatic details and pathways.

natschuster: I was always under the impression that one of the proofs of evolution is that organisms do not show optimal functioning.

That's not always the best, or best explained argument. Evolution is good at finding local maxima. But evolution can only explore a tiny fraction of available solutions. It tends to cobble together solutions by modifying available structures. But then these structures often become highly optimized, sometimes irreducibly complex. The cost is balanced against benefit at every step.

In the case of the snake, agility is sacrificed for toxin resistance. The environment will determine which is the best solution for an organism, e.g. availability of food, predators, competitors, cover.

Brodie et al., Parallel Arms Races between Garter Snakes and Newts Involving Tetrodotoxin as the Phenotypic Interface of Coevolution, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2009.

#John1453: Cosnequently, with newt eating snakes one has to postulate (1) that the poisonous newts would be such an important food source that non-newt eating snakes would starve to death before reproduction, ...

They don't have to literally starve, just leave fewer offspring on average. And it doesn't have to be the only food source, just an important one.

#John1453: the timing of the starvation and the gene mutation protection from tetrodoxin would have to occur simultaneously (and such events presumably are random occurances).

The basics of co-evolution are that both organisms evolve bit-by-bit. The newt acquires a bit of toxin. It's still edible, but with minor side effects, and usually with a bad taste. Most organisms avoid the newt. The snake develops a bit of resistance to avoid the side effects. The newt ramps up its toxicity. The snake ups it's resistance. Soon, the newt is highly toxic to everyone but the snake. The situation reaches a stable point due to the increasing costs to each organism.

In the Galapagos, one observes that finch beak shape and size change when drought, etc. changes the availability of particular seed / food sources. However, the shape and size quickly swings back when the drought is over. Evolutionists have to propose why the same would not occur with poison newt eating. Furthermore, all of the seeds are current food sources for the finches, while for the first snakes with the poison defence the newts would not even be on the food list.

In addition, mutations happen to individuals, not to populations, and the individuals that will eventually benefit from the mutations have to survive many types of killing events (eagles, etc.) so that they are in a position to survive when only poison newts are available.

The individual with the mutation also has to mate with a female with the requisite genes so that the trait gets passed on (or has to meet other conditions for the passing on of the gene).

Further, if the mutation is so frequent that it occurs widely among many individuals in the population (so that many individuals will survive other death events, be present when poison newts were the available food, and then mate).

If poisonous newts are only a marginal survival increaser, then the advantage given to those who eat the newts is much less and the whole thing becomes even more improbable.

The genetic resistance in this case is an on/off thing, and not gradualistic.

One of the main problems with evolution is that proponents do not work out the actual probabilities for mutation occurance in relation to the available population and the actual survival rates from other types of death.

Such speculation as "eat a newt with a slightly bad taste" is unwarranted. I'm not aware that snakes ever eat anything that doesn't taste good to them. Furthermore, it is more likely than not that even a small amount of toxin creates an odious taste / smell.

Finally, if the mutation were frequent enough in garter snakes to actually get established, we should be finding this gene mutation frequently in other species, just not as firmly established, and we should also find circumstances where other garter snake species are testing out the poisonous newts.

#John1453: However, the shape and size quickly swings back when the drought is over.

Yes (though the population will never return to the exact same place).

#John1453: Furthermore, all of the seeds are current food sources for the finches, while for the first snakes with the poison defence the newts would not even be on the food list.

Co-evolution was addressed above.

#John1453: Evolutionists have to propose why the same would not occur with poison newt eating.

It may. But compensatory mutations can reduce the ill-effect of the initial mutations, so the path back may not be straightforward.

#John1453: In addition, mutations happen to individuals, not to populations, and the individuals that will eventually benefit from the mutations have to survive many types of killing events (eagles, etc.) so that they are in a position to survive when only poison newts are available.

Yes, that's normal, and has been understood in terms of population genetics for nearly a century.

#John1453: The individual with the mutation also has to mate with a female with the requisite genes so that the trait gets passed on (or has to meet other conditions for the passing on of the gene).

That part you have wrong. The gene will confer an advantage even if heterozygous.

#John1453: If poisonous newts are only a marginal survival increaser, then the advantage given to those who eat the newts is much less and the whole thing becomes even more improbable.

Not improbable, but a generally slower process, again per population genetics.

Zach, Natural selection optimizes through a process of natural selection? That is self-referential and worthless.

The best you could say is that natural selection optimizes through random mutations, propagates the changes which gave the obvious survival advantage/s. But thats where it all stops. Optimization is an independent process and does not explain irreducible complexity.

Biological systems were designed to be optimized slightly without a designer waving some magic wand. But optimization does not equal the initial design process of IC interdependent structures.

This is all simple logic. We look at what mutations can do qualitatively not merely quantitatively. Whether you add deep time to the equation or not if optimize is what you receive from the start optimize is what you'll receive in the end.

#John1453: Finally, if the mutation were frequent enough in garter snakes to actually get established, we should be finding this gene mutation frequently in other species, ...

Which we do.

Brodie et al., Parallel Arms Races between Garter Snakes and Newts Involving Tetrodotoxin as the Phenotypic Interface of Coevolution, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2009.

In at least one area of sympatry, the aquatic garter snake, Thamnophis couchii, has evolved elevated resistance to the neurotoxin tetrodotoxin (TTX), present in the newt Taricha torosa. Previous studies have shown that a distantly related garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis, has coevolved with another newt species that possesses TTX, Taricha granulosa. Patterns of within population variation and phenotypic tradeoffs between TTX resistance and sprint speed suggest that the mechanism of resistance is similar in both species of snake, yet phylogenetic evidence indicates the independent origins of elevated resistance to TTX.

computerist29: Natural selection optimizes through a process of natural selection? That is self-referential and worthless.

You might try responding to exact quotes, because it doesn't appear to accurately reflect our position. Natural selection is defined as the correlation betweeen variations in heritable traits and differential reproductive potential.

computerist29: The best you could say is that natural selection optimizes through random mutations, propagates the changes which gave the obvious survival advantage/s. But thats where it all stops.

That's a good place to start. So we agree that evolutionary processes can optimize functional structures. Good.

computerist29: Optimization is an independent process and does not explain irreducible complexity.

A simple process is a complex structure A with a help B. Through functional polarization, they optimize such that A becomes dependent on B. Now the complex A-B is irreducibly complex. A well-documented example is the evolution of the mammalian middle ear. However, this may be off-topic as it is not relevant to the specific case.

Now that we agree that optimization can occur, co-evolution follows as a natural consequent.

natschuster: So evolution produces optimal functioning except when it doesn't?

Evolution is good at finding local maxima. A local maximum may not be a global maximum. Also, because each step of the evolutionary process has to be viable, it means evolution tends to cobble together modifications of existing structures.

A local maximum is not necessarily the global maximum. The top of Mount Aetna is a local maximum, but not the global maximum. Mount Everest is the global maximum. Evolutionary processes are quite adept at hill-climbing (optimization), but that doesn't necessarily put them at the highest possible point.

Illion: There is an old saying: "With "evolution," all things are possible."

Old saying? Evolution is highly constrained, and the vast majority of possibilities are inconsistent with evolution.

Optimization is to modify a system or structure to the point where it makes more efficient use of available resources globally; a process of exploitation. When it comes to your example A can lose dependency to B as easy as A becomes dependent on B.

Mutations are freely reversible, and thus you can always revert back any given optimization to its previous state, while the same does not hold true for IC systems since they are not reversible and therefore can only exploit resources temporarily. There are no absolutes when it comes to optimization, however this is a requirement of IC systems since otherwise no design would be capable of being optimized from start. Optimization works after not previous.

You can come up with all these wild guesses on how optimization worked to displace design, its all fairy tales though, and it'll never fly.

Zachriel: A great deal of variation may well provide sufficient function for viability, but may not be optimal for that function. In natural populations, all things equal, selection will tend maintain the optimized sequence.

Blasby which process?

Zachriel: Natural Seletion: Those organisms with traits best suited for the environment will tend to leave the most offspring. With all else being equal, that would be the optimized sodium channel. More precisely, Natural Selection is the correlation betweeen variations in heritable traits and differential reproductive potential.

The ellipses in your "exact quote" contains the important content, differential reproduction. If you need additional clarification, feel free to ask.

BlasOptimization is to modify a system or structure to the point where it makes more efficient use of available resources globally; a process of exploitation. When it comes to your example A can lose dependency to B as easy as A becomes dependent on B.

Functional polarization is specialization that leads to a more efficient structure. The difference is selectable.

BlasMutations are freely reversible, and thus you can always revert back any given optimization to its previous state ...

Purifying selection will tend to keep the structure at the local maximum. The rest of your comment doesn't seem to be relevant to the topic.

=======A great deal of variation may well provide sufficient function for viability, but may not be optimal for that function. In natural populations, all things equal, selection will tend maintain the optimized sequence.=======

This is a good example of all things *not* being equal. The sequence is conserved over a broad range of species (snake to human), over a broad range of environments, over >10^8 years, etc. From an evolutionary perspective it is a good example of a highly constrained design. Your explanation is the evolutionary epicycle that is needed to explain the sequence variants.

=======We agree then that conservation is due to selection. Your misunderstanding is that you think the sequence can't possibly vary and still be conserved. It's conserved because small changes move the function off its local fitness peak, and selection moves it back. =======

Selection does not move it back unless the deviation off the optimal is significant. Evolutionary theory allows that mildly fitness reducing mutations can persist. Over all those species and all those MYRs, the sequence was conserved.

=======But if a small change allows the snake to expand its available food supply, especially during famine, then the fitness peak will have moved, and snakes who may have slightly less optimized sodium channels may be fitter overall if they can now avail themselves of a new food resource while their brethren starve.=======

The garter snakes with the sequence variations are able to catch their prey and survive just fine. But the explanation has to be that they would not be successful in the old environment, competing against their cousin snakes which do not have the sequence variations.

So the explanation is that at some point in evolutionary history the newts become available, the snakes consume the newts, the snakes are rapidly killed off, except for the few snakes that had the right mutations, and they persist.

Possible? Sure, the mutations could have occurred and not yet been removed by natural selection. They had been consistently removed for MYRs running, but there might have been mutations in the population. Of course, the time window was short, and the mutations had to be just the right ones. Only a few, particular, amino acids would work, and at only a few locations. Given the relatively small population size and short time window, this does not seem to be a likely event. But not impossible. It is another in a series of unlikely events that comprise evolutionary theory. Now let's see, how did those sodium channels evolve in the first place, given that they are so constrained?

Cornelius Hunter: This is a good example of all things *not* being equal. The sequence is conserved over a broad range of species (snake to human), over a broad range of environments, over >10^8 years, etc.

The basic structure and function is the same, and they evolved from a common ancestor.

Cornelius Hunter: Your explanation is the evolutionary epicycle that is needed to explain the sequence variants.

Only if you consider population genetics an epicycle.

Cornelius Hunter: Selection does not move it back unless the deviation off the optimal is significant.

Per the definition of "significant," of course.

Cornelius Hunter: Evolutionary theory allows that mildly fitness reducing mutations can persist. Over all those species and all those MYRs, the sequence was conserved.

But they're not exactly the same, of course, or they couldn't have reconstructed the phylogenetic tree.

Cornelius Hunter: So the explanation is that at some point in evolutionary history the newts become available, the snakes consume the newts, the snakes are rapidly killed off, except for the few snakes that had the right mutations, and they persist.

The hypothesis is co-evolution.

Brodie et al., Parallel Arms Races between Garter Snakes and Newts Involving Tetrodotoxin as the Phenotypic Interface of Coevolution, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2009.

"That's not always the best, or best explained argument. Evolution is good at finding local maxima. But evolution can only explore a tiny fraction of available solutions.It tends to cobble together solutions by modifying available structures. "

I've got some shingling to do on the side of the house. Can evolution cobble some of that together?

Do you folks ever get tired of speaking anthropomorphically about a process which has almost no meaning, except "some things die faster than they screw?"

"But then these structures often become highly optimized, sometimes irreducibly complex. The cost is balanced against benefit at every step."

I'm dizzy with the possibilities. I think you ought to take this show on the road. I mean, following your logic, if I get locked out of the house, and pee in the backyard, the ammonia, when struck by lightning, will most certainly turn into a computer. (Because people make computers, eventually, because it was cobbled together by natural selection, who... which...that....)

==========Do you folks ever get tired of speaking anthropomorphically about a process which has almost no meaning ...

I'm dizzy with the possibilities. I think you ought to take this show on the road. I mean, following your logic, if I get locked out of the house, and pee in the backyard, the ammonia, when struck by lightning, will most certainly turn into a computer. (Because people make computers, eventually, because it was cobbled together by natural selection, who... which...that....)==========

NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested.

Isn't it interesting -- in a train-wreck sort of way -- the things 'modern evolutionary theorists' imagine simply must be convincing to those who aren't already into Darwinistic question-begging (and special-pleading, etc)?

Zachriel's "argument" is this: All the cool kids are "Darwinists!" Don't you wanna be cool? What's wrong with you?

Of course, Zachriel doesn't understand the logical implications of his own scientism. But then, they rarely do.

NATIONAL ACADEMY of TRUTH: The theory of evolution has become an impedement to obtaining a central unifying concept of biology and is an irrelevant component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science has been supported by an overwhelming perponderance of modern research and cannot be credibly ignored.

"Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it. ..."

Yeah, evolution(ism) is SO important to modern biology that even the majority of biologists pay so little attention to it that they don't understand it. Even though it's not a difficult concept.

Yes, I dare say that "Stuff Happens! For no reason, to no purpose!" is not a difficult concept to grasp.

"We do expect that claims that are purportedly scientific to have valid scientific justification."

And you're still behaving as a scientiste (that'e my term for poseurs for scientism), you're still wallowing in scientism.

Science -- the real thing, and not the idol you folk have set up to worship -- is such a weak and trivial thing. Science can't get off the ground without a proper philospohic/metaphysic foundation. Science can't justify anything; one must use (a correct) metaphysics and logic and reason for that purpose.

====We expect (and our "primative Bronze age religious text" predicts) that true knowledge leads to life, both individually and communally; we expect that false knowledge (i.e. falsehood mistakenly believed to be true) leads to death, both individually and communally.

We look at the world as it is ... and we see that those societies which have most embraced "Darwinism" are dying. Literally.

Zachriel, I believe you're being successfully trolled. Has Ilion said anything with any content at all in this thread? No response can be anything more than a jumping-off point for more angry, empty rhetoric. Please continue, instead, with your substantive and educational comments. I find them extremely interesting, especially in contrast to the elaborate but fact-free posturing of the resident creationists.

"Also, because each step of the evolutionary process has to be viable . . ."

What is needed is not just blue sky theorizing about co-evolution, but real world modelling. That is, stepwise mutations from snake DNA without resistance to that with (and same for the newt), together with the advantages that each step makes to survivability, along with population estimates and habitat so that we know what populations and mutation and reproduction and deat rates we have to work with, and the kind of starvation or other reasons that would lead to an eating of poisonous newts. Since the modelling does not exist, we are given just so stories, which while good for bedtime, are really just speculation and not science (unless reformulated into testable null hypotheses).

In isolated islands (Galapagos, Hawaiian, etc.), we have tens of millions of years for evolution and we do not even get one new genus. The Finch species interbreed and several varieties are essentially indistinguishable, and beak sizes vary significantly even within "one" "species" depending on food supply. Even "simpler" organisms such as fruit flies in Hawaii do not show much change,a dn that after millions of years

***********

"Finally, if the mutation were frequent enough in garter snakes to actually get established, we should be finding this gene mutation frequently in other species, ...

Which we do. "

#J: You provided one example and it was also in a context of an alleged co-evolution. What I mean is that the poison resistance mutation should show up regularly in all related garter snakes, including the ones that do not feed on poisonous newts. That is what the evolutionary theory predicts, even on the basis of co-evolution because under this latter scenario the mutations (poison and poison resistance) evolve independently and resistance only becomes useful in the presence of poison. Furthermore, the poison resistance mutation should be a continuing and present type of mutation, and in those populations that make no use of poison resistence we should find a full range of poison resistance mutations, which we don't.

Shoot, if 'modern evolutionary theorists' actually made predictions based on ‘modern evolutionary theory,’ they’d would predict that dandelions would not produce either nectar or pollen.

The production of nectar and pollen is a biological cost; in most plants, this cost is offset by the utility in reproduction. In the case of (northerly latitude) dandelions, as the seeds are not fertilized by sperm from the pollen, but rather are “fertilized” apomixicly, there is no biological benefit at all to either pollen or nectar.

#John1453: What is needed is not just blue sky theorizing about co-evolution, but real world modelling. That is, stepwise mutations from snake DNA without resistance to that with (and same for the newt), together with the advantages that each step makes to survivability, along with population estimates and habitat so that we know what populations and mutation and reproduction and deat rates we have to work with, and the kind of starvation or other reasons that would lead to an eating of poisonous newts.

What we need to prove George Washington was born naturally is a video tape of the birth.

The scientific method doesn't work that way. If it did, progress would only be possible if we were omniscient. Rather, science depends on hypothesis-testing. In this case, we do have a good idea of the mutations involved, and the mathematics of population genetics.

#John1453: In isolated islands (Galapagos, Hawaiian, etc.), we have tens of millions of years for evolution and we do not even get one new genus.

The Galápagos Islands range in age up to about 5-10 million years. There are thirteen species of Galápagos Finches which descended from a single mainland species.

Hawaii is home to a wide variety of organisms found nowhere else, including the endemic genera of Diellia (fern), Laupala (cricket), Hesperomannia (aster) and Hyposmocoma (moth). While some endemic genera may represent remnants of a previously wide-spread range, there is evidence that genera may have also originated in Hawaii then colonized other areas, such as the genus Scaptomyza (fly).

#John1453: What I mean is that the poison resistance mutation should show up regularly in all related garter snakes, including the ones that do not feed on poisonous newts.

That's not quite correct. We would expect that mutations with minor phenotypic effect may occur, but strong phenotypic effect has a cost, so would only become prevalent if there was a selective benefit.

#John1453: That is what the evolutionary theory predicts, even on the basis of co-evolution because under this latter scenario the mutations (poison and poison resistance) evolve independently and resistance only becomes useful in the presence of poison.

Co-evolution means the exact opposite of "evolve independently."

#John1453: Furthermore, the poison resistance mutation should be a continuing and present type of mutation, and in those populations that make no use of poison resistence we should find a full range of poison resistance mutations, which we don't.

This is incorrect. The phenotypic effect comes with a cost. We would only see strong phenotypic effect if there is strong selection.

Zachriel: "Even among the common dandelion, some reproduce asexually (triploid) and some reproduce sexually (diploid)."

You really didn't attend to what I'd written before foolishly attempting to dispute it, did you? Well, of course you didn't; you’re a “Darwinist.”

Hint: what I wrote already contains the statement that some dandelions reproduce sexually.

Now, for the clue-by-four (which is also contained in what I wrote): the asexually reproducing dandelions (which tend to be more northerly, while the sexually reproducing ones tend to be confined to the southerly latitudes; as I understand it, the Netherlands straddles the two zones) produce pollen and nectar, just as the sexually reproducing dandelions. However, as the pollen does not fertilize their seeds, they have no need to produce, nor use for, either the pollen for fertilization nor the nectar to lure pollinating insects. Therefore, asexual dandelion incur a biological cost from which they gain no benefit at all: it’s pure cost.

Ilion: what I wrote already contains the statement that some dandelions reproduce sexually.

What you wrote was that "In the case of (northerly latitude) dandelions, as the seeds are not fertilized by sperm from the pollen, but rather are “fertilized” apomixicly, ..."

To clarify, the very same species of common dandelion can exhibit sexual and asexual reproduction, even in adjacent areas.

Ilion: the asexually reproducing dandelions (which tend to be more northerly, while the sexually reproducing ones tend to be confined to the southerly latitudes; as I understand it, the Netherlands straddles the two zones) produce pollen and nectar, just as the sexually reproducing dandelions

That's correct.

Ilion: However, as the pollen does not fertilize their seeds, they have no need to produce, nor use for, either the pollen for fertilization nor the nectar to lure pollinating insects. Therefore, asexual dandelion incur a biological cost from which they gain no benefit at all: it’s pure cost.

That's not quite correct (nectar can be used to attract insects and reduce fertilization in nearby competitors), but we can use your statement as a first-order approximation.

But the fact that the same species (Taraxacum officinale) exhibits both forms shows how closely related the populations are, and that they diverged relatively recently. Therefore, having vestiges from that recent history is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory—indeed, with Darwin's original theory outlined in 1859.

Eventually (per the first-order approximation). Of course, life is rarely so simple.

Verduijn et al., The role of tetraploids in the sexual–asexual cycle in dandelions (Taraxacum) Heredity 2004: Apomictic plants often produce pollen that can function in crosses with related sexuals. Moreover, facultative apomicts can produce some sexual offspring... Rare tetraploids may therefore act as an important bridge in the formation of new triploid apomicts.

====Shoot, if 'modern evolutionary theorists' actually made predictions based on ‘modern evolutionary theory,’ they’d would predict that dandelions would not produce either nectar or pollen.

The production of nectar and pollen is a biological cost; in most plants, this cost is offset by the utility in reproduction. In the case of (northerly latitude) dandelions, as the seeds are not fertilized by sperm from the pollen, but rather are “fertilized” apomixicly, there is no biological benefit at all to either pollen or nectar.

Evolutionist: "Even among the common dandelion, some reproduce asexually (triploid) and some reproduce sexually (diploid)."

You really didn't attend to what I'd written before foolishly attempting to dispute it, did you? Well, of course you didn't; you’re a “Darwinist.”

Hint: what I wrote already contains the statement that some dandelions reproduce sexually.

...====

Ilíon's howitzer-like devastation of evolutionary thought continues. It is truly a testament to the strength of our religious fervor that evolution persists in the light of biology.

Cornelius Hunter: Ilíon's howitzer-like devastation of evolutionary thought continues. It is truly a testament to the strength of our religious fervor that evolution persists in the light of biology.

The claim is that because nectar is without function (not quite true) in some populations, that nectar would disappear from the population. And that may happen in some lineages eventually, however, they diverged relatively recently so vestigiality is consistent with the Theory of Evolution. We can even show a mechanism by which new asexual lineages are produced! Indeed, rudimentary organs (i.e. vestigial structures) are an important consideration in Origin of Species (1859).

It's simply a matter of realizing and then working from the realization that 'modern evolutionary theorists' nearly always decline to reason logically -- not only do they tend to decline to reason by actual logic, they decline to follow their own Darwinistic logic. So, knowing that chances are good that they're ignoring some inconvenient steps or points, it's just a matter of looking for what's being ignored.

What I meant was that the genes of each organism evolve via mutations on that organisms DNA. Such mutation is independent; the occurance of a mutation on one organism has no effect on the occurance (or not) of a mutation in another organism.

Co-evolution means only that the occurance of a mutation in one organism affects the death rate of another organism, that is, the mutation in one is a change to the environment in which the other organism must live. Mutations are independent; death is not.

Further, since mutation is random and is an ongoing occurance, we should expect "poison resistance" mutations to occur in all organisms that share the same DNA stretch, and to occur regularly enough that there is a statistical chance that the mutation would occur in circumstances where organisms with the mutation die less often and at a later, post reproduction age.

Such a widespread mutation is not observed, nor is the mutation one that has gradients (i.e., this mutation relates to some poison resistance, and this subsequent one relates to greater poison resistance). It appears to be an on/off thing.

Further, the idea of "cost" is typically an exercise in misdirection. There is no "cost" for many genetic mutations because there is often no increase in death rates for having the mutation. So, in this case, there is no "cost" to being resistant to newt poison; there is no increase in pre-reproduction death merely because the snake is resistant to poison. Hence the genetic change will continue to spread throughout the population unless there is a (significant) reason for snakes with the mutation to die out (significant, i.e. a small effect / cost will not be sufficient).

As for the Galapagos finches, the 13 so-called species are akin to calling a Cockapoo dog a new and different species from a Cockerspaniel or a Poodle.

BTW, I'm not denying the existance of genetic variation or varying death rates. I'm only denying that there is any example whatsoever of such factors resulting in the plausible creation of an organism that is so substantially different from one of its progenitors that we could call it a different organism, and not merely a varient.

Finally, the illustration of a video tape of George Washington's birth is vacuous and misleading if Z is trying to differentiate the process of ascertaining history from modelling science, though if your're admitting that evolution is just history, well, I'm OK with that.

Allopatrik: "[linking to a devastating rebuttal … based on question-begging and evasion]"

‘Modern evolutionary theorists’ “refute” any questions raised regarding the efficacy of ‘modern evolutionary theory’ to explain all of biology by assuring us that it *does* explain all things … because, after all, there’s no other (acceptable) theory available.

This Darwinistic reasoning is like the prosecutor in some sleepy back-woods town saying to a jury in his summation: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, now I know that some of you are likely thinking that the defense has poked a hole or two in the prosecution’s theory of the crime; shoot! I expect some of you even imagine that the defense has sunk the prosecution’s case. But, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I implore you to not be swayed by such unlawyerly considerations. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: I submit to you that if you do not convict Bubba for the vicious murder of Gentle Nell, then her death will go unpunished – and indeed, all justice in our fair city will come to a halt: for we have no other suspect!”

#John1453: What I meant was that the genes of each organism evolve via mutations on that organisms DNA. Such mutation is independent; the occurance of a mutation on one organism has no effect on the occurance (or not) of a mutation in another organism.

Mutations are independent. Okay.

#John1453: Further, since mutation is random and is an ongoing occurance, we should expect "poison resistance" mutations to occur in all organisms that share the same DNA stretch, and to occur regularly enough that there is a statistical chance that the mutation would occur in circumstances where organisms with the mutation die less often and at a later, post reproduction age.

Regularly, meaning at the background rate of mutation. The selective advantage depends on the phenotypic effect and the environment.

#John1453: Such a widespread mutation is not observed, ...

The background mutation rate is ~10^-8 per base per generation, so you wouldn't expect to observe "widespread mutation" of any particular allele. Also, most simple mutations would have small phenotypic effect.

#John1453: ... nor is the mutation one that has gradients (i.e., this mutation relates to some poison resistance, and this subsequent one relates to greater poison resistance). It appears to be an on/off thing.

That is incorrect. Toxicity and resistance can be shown to vary, with resistance typically able to gain the upper hand.

#John1453: There is no "cost" for many genetic mutations because there is often no increase in death rates for having the mutation.

The cost for resistance comes in reduced nervous mobility, slithering.

#John1453: As for the Galapagos finches, the 13 so-called species are akin to calling a Cockapoo dog a new and different species from a Cockerspaniel or a Poodle.

Try to avoid handwaving. Virtually all ornithologists agree that Galápagos Finches form separate species with distinct characteristics. Do you understand why biologists consider dogs to be a single species, but Galápagos Finches to be thirteen separate species? Can you cite a few credible ornithologists who take the contrary position?

#John1453: if your're admitting that evolution is just history, well, I'm OK with that.

The Theory of Evolution is a complex structure that includes claims about mechanisms and claims about history.

Zachriel: "The Theory of Evolution is a complex structure that includes claims about mechanisms and claims about history."

Then again, the (non-existent) Theory of Evolution is also a simple structure ... which apparently no one understands: "Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it. ..."

Zachriel: "Try to avoid handwaving. Virtually all ornithologists agree that Galápagos Finches form separate species with distinct characteristics. Do you understand why biologists consider dogs to be a single species, but Galápagos Finches to be thirteen separate species? Can you cite a few credible ornithologists who take the contrary position?"

What fools (*) these 'modern evolutionary theorists' are! How flexible are their "scientific" and "objective" definitions.

(*) In calling Zachriel a 'fool,' I did not say that he is stupid, I said that he is intellectually dishonest.

The finch species represent birds that differ very little from each other in any significant way, as is recognized in the relevant literature. The finches “retain the ability to interbreed and produce viable, fertile hybrids” (Jeffrey Podos and Stephen Nowicki, “Beaks, Adaptation, and Vocal Evolution in Darwin’s Finches,” BioScience, Vol. 54(6):501-510 (June 2004)). It has also been documented that that several of Galápagos finch “species” are known to interbreed in the wild (Peter R. Grant and B. Rosemary Grant, “Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin’s finches,” Science, Vol. 296:707-711 (2002)). Now of course interbreeding is not the be all and end all of speciation, but the ability to interbreed indicates how close the “species” are to each other—more akin to varieties of dogs than to dogs v. foxes.

The 13 species of finches range in size from about 10 – 20 centimetres, a variation in size that is less than that among dog varieties. In his book, The Beak of the Finch, Jonathan Weiner compares the largest and smallest Galápagos ground finch species and remarks that, “The largest fortis on Isabela are, even to Peter and Rosemary Grant, ‘almost indistinguishable’ from the smallest of the magnirostris on Rábida.” and “You can’t distinguish these three species by their plumage, and usually not by their build or body size either.”. Robert J. Whittaker, in his book Island Biogeography: Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation, agrees that ““it is extremely difficult to identify all the [Galápagos] finches, as the largest members of some species are almost indistinguishable from the smallest members of others” (Oxford University Press, 1998).

Biologists, led by Jan Klein of the Max Planck Institute for Biology in Tubingen, Germany, found that in their analysis of what is known as mitochondrial DNA, they could not distinguish among the species of ground finch. The same was true of the tree finch species. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1999).

None of the birds have developed new or different structures, and the differences in beak structure are nothing much to write home about because the beaks change in relation to available food sources and then change back when the preferred food sources are again available, indicating that beak shape is an inherent variation already present in the ancestor finch and that any inability of one finch “species” to grow a bill like some of the others is indicative of loss of prevously existing genetic information, not the creation of new information (i.e., beak shape) by DNA mutation. The same goes for plumage differences (which are either non-existent or for the most part very, very subtle).

All in all, rather mild speciation and nothing to get worked up about, and not something that provides any verification for the belief that DNA mutation and death can lead to significantly different organisms over time.

So, after millions of years on Galapagos what do we get? Finches that vary from each other more like dogs do among themselves rather than something that is as different as dog and a fox.

Z: "The selective advantage depends on the phenotypic effect and the environment."

I agree, but I rarely, if every see this worked out. Other sciences are able to develop detailed and complex models to test their theories, why not evolutionary biology? If evolutionists want to convince me (and I'm open to it as my faith does not depend on it), then this sort of pragmatic and plausible modelling is necessary (which is not akin to a video of Washington's birth--a rather off argument shot).

BTW, there should be a law against birth videos. I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to watch one. One of my friends on a commuter train had this guy, whom she had seen often, sit down beside her. He asks her, "can I show you something on my computer". She is a way too nice and polite women and says OK. Guess the video. She went home and told her husband that they were not having one, though eventually she relented. As I said, it should be a criminal offence.

John: "So, after millions of years on Galapagos what do we get? Finches that vary from each other more like dogs do among themselves rather than something that is as different as dog and a fox."

Quite so.

And, in any event (even were the "species" of Galápagos Finches actual species), the real issue isn't speciation; that's just a distraction such as stage magicians rely upon. The real issue is whence comes biological novelty?

Some species of Darwin's Finches hybridize, but infrequently in nature. The authors also say, "Galapagos finches of the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador, are one of the most celebrated illustrations of adaptive radiation. These birds have evolved an impressive array of specializations in beak form and function, in accordance with the diverse feeding niches they have come to occupy." Is that what you were getting at?

#John1453: Biologists, led by Jan Klein of the Max Planck Institute for Biology in Tubingen, Germany, found that in their analysis of what is known as mitochondrial DNA, they could not distinguish among the species of ground finch. The same was true of the tree finch species. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1999).

That is incorrect. They could clearly distinguish the extant species, but couldn't resolve the order of divergence for the most closely related species with the techniques available at the time.

Klein et al., Phylogeny of Darwin’s finches as revealed by mtDNA sequences, PNAS 1999: Darwin’s finches comprise a group of passerine birds first collected by Charles Darwin during his visit to the Galápagos Archipelago. The group, a textbook example of adaptive radiation (the diversification of a founding population into an array of species differentially adapted to diverse environmental niches), encompasses 14 currently recognized species, of which 13 live on the Galápagos Islands and one on the Cocos Island in the Pacific Ocean.

So in their words, Darwin's Finches constitute 13 species on Galápagos that are a textbook case of adaptive radiation. The difficulty in resolving the phylogeny doesn't mean the species can't be distinguished. The problem in phylogeny is often due to frequent hybridization during the process of speciation making for a tangled node, even if the species are quite distinct now. Speciation is a process, and often a rapid one, so it can be difficult to determine the details of these transitions. Since that study many of these relationships have been resolved; and, of course, Darwin's Finches fit within the phylogeny of their close relatives.

More to your point, from your own cite, we can determine that finches diverged from a common ancestor into distinct genera in just a few million years.

#John1453: So, after millions of years on Galapagos what do we get? Finches that vary from each other more like dogs do among themselves rather than something that is as different as dog and a fox.

Dogs were subject to artificial evolution, but are still the same species as there is significant gene flow throughout their range. Foxes diverged about 12 million years ago, so their history is longer than Darwin's Finches. Per your own analysis, everything is as expected by evolutionary theory.

"There are all sorts of detailed models of evolutionary processes". Um, no. Lots of speculation and just so stories though.

There are detailed models of processes, but not a model of the evolution of a new structure or new organism (no stepwise genetic changes coupled with rates of death and reproduction, which require models of the associated habitats). There is no convincing evidence that any of the processes can actually operate to change an organism significantly.

The finches are a case in point. Very little radiative evolution has happened despite the long time periods involved. There are no finches as large as albatrosses, no finches with talons, no flightless finches, no meat eating finches, no migrating finches, no webbed diving finches, etc.

There is no evidence that with even more time we could expect any significant changes to the finches such that there would come to be a new organism that would not qualify as a finch.

BTW: I was wrong on the toxicity and resistance cost. Snakes with very high resistance do slither slower, however, it is not clear that snakes with low or moderate resistance slither significantly slower, nor is there an estimate of increased death rates for slower slithering. Hence we do not know if the reduced slither speed makes any difference at all to death rates and would have any effect at all on the rate at which higher resistance is passed on.

Evolution is a faith that particles, acted upon by the four fundamental forces (strong and weak nuclear, gravity, electro-magnetic) will randomly interact until there are communications satellites circling a planet.

Lastly, its the fallacy of assuming the consequent, and of the excluded middle, to believe that the mammalian middle ear is proof of common descent. For it to be proof of common descent, one would need to prove the premise that the middle ear could only be derived by common descent. Currently that premise is assumed, not proved, and so results in the fallacy of assuming the consequent. Second, given that the premise is not proved, one also has the issue of the fact that no one is looking for any other explanation--because it is assumed that there is no other explanation--and hence that assumption falls under the fallacy of the excluded middle.

It is possible that the middle ear is an example of common descent, but it is by no means proved.

Zachriel: "After all, humans are 'just' elaborated Deuterostomes. A tube with appendages to stuff food into one end. Microevolution."

What a typically "Darwinistic" response ... when speaking for public consumption, at any rate. In private, when hoi poloi are thought not to be around, they may speak more honestly.

We *all* -- including Zachriel -- know that Zachriel's assertion is both false and nonexplanatory.

And, since we all realize that even Zachriel knows that his claim is false, yet clearly he willingly made it, that means that we all know that Zachriel is intellectually dishonest (even John knows this) (**). Intellectual dishonesty, by the way, is generally worse than mere garden variety lying.

====(**) The only logical/rational way to way to escape the conclusion that Zachriel is intellectually dishonest is to conclude, or at least to assert, that he is too stupid to understand that his claims are false. I am not willing, for reasons of morality and reason, to assert that about anyone.

Hypothetically, there is one alternate explanation for Zachriel's continuous assertions of falsehoods; and that is that he is too ignorant to understand that his claims are false.

However, that option doesn't work here, for here the problem is not knowledge of facts, but rather faulty reasoning ... and if we try to claim that Zachriel's faulty reasoning and false assertions are due to an inability to reason correctly, then we are back to asserting that he's stupid.

Either: 1) Zachriel *can* reason properly, in which case the fauly reasoning he exhibits is willfully chosen, which means that he chooses to be intellectually dishonest; or, 2) Zachriel *cannot* reason properly, in which case is it cruel (and immoral) of us to attempt to reason with him, for he cannot and our attempts amount only to taunting him.

Zachriel: "After all, humans are 'just' elaborated Deuterostomes. A tube with appendages to stuff food into one end. Microevolution."

So, having dealt with the more important issue -- for it is utterly impossible to engage in rational discussion or argumentation with persons who choose to be intellectually dishonest -- let us turn our attention to the content of Zachriel's willingly asserted falsehood:

I said that (and pace Saint Chuckie) the real issue is not "the origin of species," but rather the real issue is the origin of biological novelty. As was pointed out more than a centurt ago (by Hugo De Vries, and probably other before him), "the 'survival of the fittest' does not explain the arrival of the fittest" (*)

To state the trivial truism that those organisms which just happen to possess a set of characteristics which allow then to flourish in their particular environment can be expected to flourish in their particular environment does not go one whit toward explaining how those organisms came to possess those characteristics.

It is an assertion of 'modern evolutionary theory' that mammals are worms with novel characteristics.

And here, how does Zachriel "explain" that some organisms come to possess such novel characteristics as distinguish a mammal from a worm? He simply asserts that they "just do" acquire the characteristics. This explains nothing, and it is, in fact, yet another instance of question-begging.

And then he falsely, and knowingly so, calls that "just do" assertion 'microevolution.'

Microevolution (which no one disputes) does not and never can provide the answer to the question: "whence biological novelty?"

Most speciation is microevolutionary; it does not touch upon the issue. And any instance of hypothetical speciation asserted by 'modern evolutionary theorists' to have been macroevolutionary always involves question-begging and special-pleading in the assertion.

====(*) Hey, Salty! There's a quote for you to add to your collection. Unless De Vries is on your out list.

Zachriel: "In order to understand the broad changes in evolutionary history, it's best to start by establishing Common Descent. A well-established example is the evolution of the mammalian middle ear."

How does a 'modern evolutionary theorist' "establish" his doctrine of common descent? Why, he simply assumes it: he simply begs the question!

Moreover, whether assumed or actually establish, the common descent doctrine does nothing to address the issue: "whence biological novelty?" Nor does the question-begging (and special-pleading) exercise of "explaining" "the evolution of the mammalian middle ear" either address the important issue, or establish the common descent doctrine.

Just look at what Zachriel has written. Even ignoring the question-begging (and implicit special-pleading) of it, it makes no sense:

Establishing the common descent doctrine -- even if that had ever been done -- does *nothing* to advance an "understand[ing of] the broad changes in evolutionary history." All that "establishment" would tell us is that there *must* be a broad range of biological changes in the intertwined history of living organisms, and which may or may not be intelligible.

The "example [of] the evolution of the mammalian middle ear" -- even if that had ever been established -- does *nothing* to advance an "understand[ing of] the broad changes in evolutionary history," nor does little to "establish" the universal common descent doctrine. At best, it can tell us that common descent isn't utterly unreasonable. But we already know that.

"Darwinists" either:1) cannot reason properly -- which means that they are stupid; or,2) decline to reason properly -- which means that they are intellectually dishonest, which is to say, worse than mere liars.

And no amount of whinging about how "mean" it is of me to point out this truth makes the truth go away.

==="Darwinists" either:1) cannot reason properly -- which means that they are stupid; or,2) decline to reason properly -- which means that they are intellectually dishonest, which is to say, worse than mere liars.===

Well said. This is where evolutionary thought leads. It is obvious to anyone not blinded--just read what the evolutionists say, here and in the literature.

The many problems with evolutionism result from faulty reasoning, and the faulty reasoning is necessitated by desite to protect the faulty metaphysic (i.e. atheism) they willfully choose.

What I said above applies not only to 'modern evolutionary theorists,' but to all persons who believe or assert false propostions and/or faulty reasoning --

There are three, and only three, general categories of explanation for any person's belief of or assertion of false propostions and/or faulty logic. Of course, to understand these categories, and to properly categorize a particular instance, does not explain *how* it is that the belief or reasoning is false. Nor do the categories explain the individual's *rationale* for believing of asserting the false belief or logic. Also, when examining any particular instance of a false assertion of belief or reasoning, the full understanding may include a complex interplay between the three categories.

To put it most neutrally, these three general categories of explanation for why an individual person does not understand some particular truth are:1) inability it properly understand the truth of the matter;2) lack of some knowledge necessary to properly understand the truth of the matter;3) disinclination to possess the knowledge necessary to properly understand the truth of the matter.

#John1453: There are detailed models of processes, but not a model of the evolution of a new structure or new organism (no stepwise genetic changes coupled with rates of death and reproduction, which require models of the associated habitats).>

You seem to be proposing a nebulous strawman. Science works by hypothesis-testing, typically models that are then tested against the evidence. You seem to be saying you need to be able to sequence a dinosaur's genome then point to every mutation before you can determine that they evolved.

#John1453: The finches are a case in point. Very little radiative evolution has happened despite the long time periods involved.

Your own cite says "Galapagos finches are "one of the most celebrated illustrations of adaptive radiation.

#John1453: There are no finches as large as albatrosses, no finches with talons, no flightless finches, no meat eating finches, no migrating finches, no webbed diving finches, etc.

Meeting your personal requirements is not a prediction of evolutionary theory, but that they will evolve to occupy the available niches. Rather, again according to your own cite, they "have evolved an impressive array of specializations in beak form and function, in accordance with the diverse feeding niches they have come to occupy."

#John1453: There is no evidence that with even more time we could expect any significant changes to the finches such that there would come to be a new organism that would not qualify as a finch.

Indeed, we can measure the rate of change, and the observed rate of change, measured in the thousands of darwins, is much faster than required to explain widespread historical adaptation.

#John1453: its the fallacy of assuming the consequent, and of the excluded middle, to believe that the mammalian middle ear is proof of common descent.

Our comment was poorly worded. Rather, once having established Common Descent, then we can consider the mechanisms of evolutionary adaptation involved in the evolution of the mammalian middle ear.

Ilion {snipped extensive off-topic tirades}: How does a 'modern evolutionary theorist' "establish" his doctrine of common descent?

The same way generations of biologists have done—by observing the nested hierarchy, then making and testing empirical predictions.

Ilion: Establishing the common descent doctrine -- even if that had ever been done -- does *nothing* to advance an "understand[ing of] the broad changes in evolutionary history."

A review of the evidence allows us to place organisms in their order of appearance in time and see how they have diverged and changed through the generations. By doing so, we can determine whether the posited mechanisms are capable of explaining the transitions.

I find this hard to believe, considering your characterization of how it is done at antievolution.org:

"First, the data are processed to cull homologous sequences, thus rejecting differences. Then the analysis is rerun several times to hone the results, and remaining outliers are explained as a consequence hypothetical evolutionary scenarios. The results are published, and later become strong evidence for evolution and we use them to confirm our flimsy conclusions."

Seems to be a fantasy version of events.If that is the way YOU do such analyses, then YOUR analyses are suspect, however, I am unaware of anyone doing them the way you describe.

Do you believe evolution is a fact?"

It depends on what you mean by evolution.

Change through time?

Certainly.

Evolution as in the ToE? The ToE is a well supported scientific theory.

As for Ilion's charges, well, I expect such hyperbole and aspersion casting from a computer technician with no background in scioence who desperately attempts to prop up his silly beliefs by regurgitating nonsense about evolution.

Funny though - he's never seemed to think much about the very real problems of getting 6 billion people of hundreds of diverse ethnicities in 4,500 years for 4 inbreeding breeding pairs.

Yet I am accused of being 'dishonest'. That is the creationist way. It is not as if I had purposefully manipulated a photograph to make it appear as though it was something else, and when called out on it, claimed it was just a big mistake, or something like that.

Furthermore, even if it were established, that does not entail that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution was the process by which the middle ear came about. It still has not been demonstrated anywhere that DNA mutation and associated decreased death rates can create new structures in an organism or new organisms.

Shoot, even after eons the Galapagos finches can't even out compete each other with evolved fancy bird-of-paradise-like plumage.

#John1453: {you need to be able to sequence a dinosaur's genome then point to every mutation before you can determine that they evolved.}

That is the source of your confusion. Darwin didn't need a theory of genetics in order to propose a valid scientific theory of evolution (whether you accept his argument or not). If we had to know everything before reaching any conclusions, science would be impotent.

#John1453: BTW, the Vampire Finch example was good. Is there an associated DNA change?

Yes. For instance, the beak is sharper than any other subspecies. Again, we don't need a theory of genetics to be able to determine that septentrionalis has evolved.

Peter and Rosemary Grant have observed generations of Darwin's Finches over the past thirty years. They can catalog the evolution of these species *independently* of any theory of genetics. But we do have a valid theory of genetics, and we can predict that there will be genetic changes consistent with mutational theory associated with these differences in beak and other characteristics.

====Seems to be a fantasy version of events.If that is the way YOU do such analyses, then YOUR analyses are suspect, however, I am unaware of anyone doing them the way you describe.====

Hmm, a "fantasy version of events." That is quite a claim. So data are not processed, homologous sequences are not compared, reruns are not made with various settings, outliers are not explained in evolutionary terms? Yeah, it's all just a fantasy.

==="Do you believe evolution is a fact?"

Evolution as in the ToE? The ToE is a well supported scientific theory.===

Yeah, there's nothing like not yourself believing to be, you know, actually true, some set of claims that you're trying to convince (*) others to believe to be true, and which you try to insist they have no right to not believe to be true.

(*) Though, admittedly, 'convince' isn't quite the word to use of the anti-logical approach employed by "Darwinists" all up and down the food chain.

S L Page: "Evolution as in the ToE? The ToE is a well supported scientific theory."

Zachriel: "Evolution is well-supported scientific fact. The Theory of Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory."

Now, in Mr Hunter's question, the words 'evolution' and 'fact' both leave way too much room for evasive answers which appear on the surface to be direct, non-evasive answers. Nevertheless, our heros chose the obviously evasive response.

I make it a practice not even to read Page's posts, anywhere. Thus, until just now, I'd seen only the portion of his response that Mr Hunter had chosen to duplicate.

Cornelius Hunter (to Page): "Do you believe evolution is a fact?"

S L Page: "It depends on what you mean by evolution.

Change through time?

Certainly.

Evolution as in the ToE? The ToE is a well supported scientific theory."

The meaning of the question depends upon just what is meant by the word 'evolution' *and* just what is meant by the word 'fact.' 'Evolution' is used to refer to several distinct things; 'fact' is used to refer to two distinct things.

But neither of those two distinct meanings of the word 'fact' is even remotely covered by "well supported scientific theory."

Evolution, the change in heritable traits over time, is directly observed. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is comprised of a number of well-supported claims about evolutionary mechanisms and history.

Zach: "Evolution, the change in heritable traits over time, is directly observed. Evolution is a fact."

Equivocation in terms, and consequently a point not proved.

Evolution, in the Darwinian or neoDarwinian sense, is not merely the "change in heritable traits over time". It is much more than that. It is the belief (well, faith really) that mutation of DNA coupled with variable death rates will necessarily result in the development of novel structures and in such significant changes between ancestor and descendent organisms that they consitute entirely different organisms.

There there is "change in heritable traits over time" is something that everyone believes in. Even my Mennonite grandfather believed in it, because he bred pigs and cattle and could the changes occur. Galapagos finch variation is evidence of it. However, the Galapagos finches are not undergoing the kind of change that will lead to novel structures or to a significantly different organism.

We will never see a Galapagos Finch become flightless, then become a shore bird, then become a flightless diving bird that only breeds on land, then become a whale-like organism that spends its entire existence at sea, and that then develops baleen and eats krill and then becomes huge. However, given the darwinist theory of random undirected mutational change that sort of just so story is (in their minds) entirely possible.

The point about the garter snakes, however, is smaller that that undermining argument. The garter snake article provides an example of the Borg-like character of Darwinian evolution. It absorbs every single falsification of its predictions into itself. The falsification merely becomes another "correction" (or epicycle) to the theory. The theory itself is not falsifiable; there is no finding that could not be absorbed by making some change to the myth itself.

And just so that it's clear, I'm not using "myth" in the sense of a story that is not true, but in the sense of a story that--whether or not it is true or false--provides meaning and structure to the individuals who hold to it. (Hence, in that sense Christianity is also "myth", though a myth that I believe is true). However, I do note that Christianity is, or was, falsifiable: had the body of Jesus been produced, then it could not be believed that he physically rose from the dead.

Ilion, no need to get defensive or snarky; I merely asked a question and did not write anything pejorative about YECs. I don't know much about the people that blog here, and Doppleganger indicated that you believed in a 4,500 year existence of humans. I did not know whether he was using that as a slur against anyone who does not beleive in evolution, or whether he was referring specifically to something you had written on another thread.

Zachriel: Evolution, the change in heritable traits over time, is directly observed. Evolution is a fact.

#John1453: Equivocation in terms, and consequently a point not proved.

It's not an equivocation when using a well-established definition of "evolution" and drawing a careful distinction between that and the "Theory of Evolution."

#John1453: Evolution, in the Darwinian or neoDarwinian sense, is not merely the "change in heritable traits over time". It is much more than that. It is the belief (well, faith really) that mutation of DNA coupled with variable death rates will necessarily result in the development of novel structures and in such significant changes between ancestor and descendent organisms that they consitute entirely different organisms.

That's a rather poor restatement of aspects of the Theory of Evolution. It's not variable death rates, but the correlation between variations in heritable traits and variations in reproductive potential. As for the differences between ancestors and descendents, the evidence clearly indicates that organisms have and do change substantially over time. The best evidence for that remains Common Descent. There's no point discussing mechanisms if you reject that organisms have descended with modification from common ancestors. Common Descent needs be established first.

#John1453: However, the Galapagos finches are not undergoing the kind of change that will lead to novel structures or to a significantly different organism.

The rate of evolution in Galápagos Finches is much, much faster than required to explain the historical pattern.

#John1453: We will never see a Galapagos Finch become flightless, then become a shore bird, then become a flightless diving bird that only breeds on land, then become a whale-like organism that spends its entire existence at sea, and that then develops baleen and eats krill and then becomes huge.

Instead, you have marine iguanas, vampire finches and flightless cormorants. In addition, the time on Galápagos has been quite short. We know this from the geology of the Islands. In any case, life adapts to its own needs without checking your arbitrary goals.

#John1453: The falsification merely becomes another "correction" (or epicycle) to the theory.

Darwin posited coevolution in Origin of Species in 1859, so it's hardly an epicycle. Darwin was a careful observer, and his Fertilisation of Orchids in 1862 expanded on the subject.

John,I did not get defensive -- that accusation, by the way, is almost always the expression of a passive-aggressive mindset.

And if you don't like snarkiness from me, then don't ask an ad hominem question (especially one about me).

"I merely asked a question and did not write anything pejorative about YECs."

You don't really understand what 'ad hominem' means, do you?

You question was 'ad hominem in nature not because you said anything pejorative (or complimentary!) about YECs, but because whether I am or am not a YEC has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments I make.

John1453: "... and Doppleganger indicated that you believed in a 4,500 year existence of humans."

If associate professor (*) Page says, "The sky is blue," the wise man will go check for himself.

Associate professor Page also said: "As for Ilion's charges, well, I expect such hyperbole and aspersion casting from a computer technician with no background in scioence who desperately attempts to prop up his silly beliefs by regurgitating nonsense about evolution."

Now, associate parasite Page knows that his factual claim is factually false, and (since he's not actually stupid) he knows that his implied argument is logically invalid, which is to say, illogical. And yet, he says this same thing I've quoted here. Constantly.

(*) i.e. Mr Page is a tax-funded parasite who seems to spend an inordinate amount of his tax-payer subsidized time trolling the internet. And cyber-stalking lil' old me.

Ilíon: You question was 'ad hominem in nature not because you said anything pejorative (or complimentary!) about YECs, but because whether I am or am not a YEC has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments I make.

Actually, being a YEC directly impacts your position. The Theory of Evolution predicts the Earth is of great age. This has been verified through many techniques, in geology and the physical sciences. This is in contradiction to 19th century predictions of a somewhat younger Earth based on classical physics and rates of cooling based on gravitational collapse.

Get a grip. I did check your website, which did not say anything about any YEC belief. I did not relate any alleged YEC belief to any of the arguments we were making. Whatever. It's not relevant so I'll move on to more recent posts.

"poor restatement of aspects of the Theory of Evolution. It's not variable death rates, but the correlation between variations in heritable traits and variations in reproductive potential."

It's, bottom line, death rates. An organism has to survive to reproduce. Natural selection has no "pressure" of any kind; it only removes genetic material. The only mechanism that most evolutionary theories have for the introduction of new genetic materia is mutation, which has not yet been shown to be able to produce novel structures or organisms.

The correlations, etc., cited are irrelevant if the organisms do not survive.

Death rates are only one factor. Another important factor is fecundity. Another is juvenile care, including nesting.

#John1453: The only mechanism that most evolutionary theories have for the introduction of new genetic materia is mutation, which has not yet been shown to be able to produce novel structures or organisms.

Of course they have. A simple example is nylonase. Establishing Common Descent is important to understanding most historical examples.

CH, indeed Zachriel is an intelligent designer, who designs arguments for evolution - for a living I suppose. I find that the arguments that they propose simply have faulty facts coupled with "good" logic or "good" logic coupled with faulty facts. Their argument-design goal is simple; make big claims using little evidence - their designer abilities; imagination and creativity kick off from there. So the creativity starts off at the fossil record which is species-centric, next stop RM & NS didit plus deep time, but never makes its way down to actual quantitative and qualitative changes required, the probabilistic barriers, which is entirely information-centric; a dead-end for Darwinists.

This kind of logical fallacy really irks me. Just because you (OP)obviously lack a scientific understanding or have the inability to comprehend critical thinking does not lend you to assert your mystical beliefs, which are just an appeal to a theological authority.

Although I realize arguing faith with the faithful is like trying to convince a rock to fly, I'll attempt to explain this reputable scientific paper to you and your fanatics. I don't expect any logical response. In fact, I don't even expect you to read this, just answer with some nonsensical religious fervor and an expectation I should stop trying to comprehend my world and make it better, but bow to a mystical invisible creator and go sacrifice a goat.

So here it goes: Gene conservation does not mean static (unchanging). Small changes in an amino acid sequence can be tolerated with little or no structural deficit or change to the function. In fact, humans have 9 functional sodium channel variants, which have a very high sequence homology to mammalian variants (not 100%). Small changes occur at the gene level which are passed on during the process of reproduction. If the variation is successful, the successor has the opportunity to live a longer life, with more offspring. If the gene causes a mutation in a protein (eg. sodium channel) that causes a disfunction critical to survival, the organism dies. That, in essence, is "natural selection". However, there are no absolutes and biology is a complex field of study.Accumulations of mutations can happen over the lifetime of an individual, and some of these have the potential to be passed to the next generation. Some mutations are beneficial, some lethal, some debilitating, and some benign.

Complexity in no means suggests that a higher power MUST be involved, be it Allah, God, Jehova, Thor, the Tooth Fairy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It only suggests that we, as ignorant humans, must embrace our ignorance and strive to learn more. If we give up, as you have, to an ultimate power, we stop attempting to achieve something better and our discoveries cease to exist.

Actually, let me pose a question to you. Why would a divine creator make us so faulty? A playground next to a sewer? Or how about breathing through the same hold we drink through? Also, do you seriously think that we humans are the pinnacle of evolution? Really? Personally, I hope not. It's sad that the arrogance of humanity causes so much fear that we're not actually the greatest creation...that there could (or probably is) something better. It limits us as we are, causes a rift between us and nature, and denies you of having a purpose of good without being threatened by vengeance.

I wont deny you of your beliefs, as long as they don't deny me of reason and the pursuit of knowledge. Otherwise, either get informed or stop making religion look bad.